Theological Reflection: Swinton And Mowat’s Model Of Practical Theology

This essay will evaluate the ways in which the article ‘Help and Hindrance: Clergy Talking about Bullying’ qualifies and does not qualify as a piece of practical theology according to John Swinton and Harriet Mowat’s 2006 four-step methodology model which was published in a practical theology journal.

The Model

Swinton and Mowat’s model of practical theology is one of many but it is the model I have chosen to use in assessing the article. Their method is one of ‘critical faithfulness’ that accepts divine revelation as accurate and true but says it is open to wide interpretation and that there is no set way for expressing ones faith and no single set of traditions that all church communities must follow. To be critical in this sense is to reflect on the faithful traditions which is the overarching aim of practical theology. The circular model of method for practical theology starts, very importantly, by assessing the current practices in church communities. This is done by gathering data on the experience of individuals regarding the theme of the study. This step is where the topic of issue will be explicitly established as after gathering initial data, a preliminary aim may need to change. For Swinton, human experience is of great importance and it is imperative for practical theology. By collecting qualitative data from people we acknowledge the way spiritual teachings are of actual effect in the everyday lives. Swinton is very clear about how the experience will not be seen as revelation but that does not mean the church cannot learn from practical theology. The next step is to recognise and respond to the contextual nature of the data collected from experience. The initial data only reaches surface-level experience of what seems to be happening; the second step uncovers more detail about what is happening and sociological and psychological causes. As all experiences are subjective, it is important to note the effects that environment and personal lives have that would directly affect their reporting of experience. For example, a young mother is going to have a different experience to an elderly gentleman even if the circumstances are the same. Especially in context with religious engagement, although the teachings of scripture and the bible are concrete, the interactions of the church in communities vastly differ. For this aspect of the method we must think more deeply about the implications of society and the church in human life. Step one and two work side by side in those findings in step two may influence the initial question we want to ask in step one.

The third step is theological reflection and this is where focus is put on the aspects of theology that affect step one and two. Anything that arises in the first two steps can be explored at this stage. This section allows us to retain the ‘critical faithfulness’ and sometimes shows how it can be necessary to reinterpret scripture. The last step of reformulating practices is when, potentially, a new method of actions is offered up. Whether that be making a sermon more accessible to those with cognitive impairment or evaluating the nature in which we interoperate scripture regarding the treatment of women, the last step of practical theology can help a church and a congregation to grow and evolve. This step is not final either, it too is in dialogue with the other three steps making this method a dynamic process. Practical theology, at least from Swinton and Mowat’s model is staying true to tradition without allowing the church to become detached from society.

Current Praxis

Applying this method to the article on bullying, Lorraine Turner sets out to study the prevalence of bullying among Anglican clergy members in dioceses in Kent using practical theology. The article starts out by presenting statistics collected from a Negative Acts Questionnaire, a short questionnaire designed to find out about bullying at work, which was given to clergy members. Of course, these statistics came from a small, self-selecting sample from only one diocese but the indication from the statistics is that bullying is an issue which needs further investigation. Statistical analysis does not fit with Swinton’s model of practical theology however, these statistics are only the platform that launches the more detailed investigation for Turner and in a way act as the initial finding that are mentioned in the method of research. The statistics are giving an indication as to where to focus the study on. When the method begins is from eight people from the survey then giving in-depth interviews which are ‘deliberately subjective’ in order to study the actual experiences of these individuals. This fits with Swinton and Mowat’s model in basing the study directly in experience with analysis of interviews.

Cultural Context

Working as the next step in the method in analysing cultural and contextual aspects of these experiences, Turner gives the reason why each participant has decided to take part in the survey. The social context should always be acknowledged and in order for practical theology and its techniques to be fully utilised we must understand the social context in which the experiences take place. For example, in this self-selecting study on bullying it is important to recognise why there is an interest in bullying whether it be on a professional or personal level or having an interest on ethical grounds as a member of the church. Sections from interviews of clergy members are quoted in the article along with analysis. Turner is very clear and logical when giving comments on statements from the interview however it could be seen as extrapolation beyond the actual experience. Turner is analysing the psychology of individuals past what is reported by them. It is even stated in the article that she uses a framework of IPA which is a technique that psychologically evaluates while being empathetic. This technique is good for getting to the core of the issue but it does seem to go beyond what practical theology asks by picking apart the underlying issues from the collected data of anecdotal experience. This perhaps moves these sections from practical theology into psychoanalysis. An example of this may be when Turner pins the issue of non-acting sympathy down to the way in which the spiritual director places herself outside of the dioceses as an observer. Turner also reflects on the nature of the church leadership and gives several important contextual insights. For example, explaining the reluctance of the church to even engage with bullying as a concept is incredibly important to the understanding of the experiences had by interviewees. All of these contextual aspects are important to recognise in any practical theology study but Swinton and Mowat do not see it as the core reflection.

Theological Reflection and Revised Practice

The step of theological reflection on current practices is exceedingly important as when implementing any changes you may wish to after the study, it is important to be responsible about not undermining the teaching of the church and especially of insinuating inaccuracies of the bible. It is also important to be critical as without reflection and criticism the world and the church would never be able to move forward. However many people, clergy or not, take issue when people such as practical theologians threaten and critique the bible directly. Swinton is very clear on how we can accept the ‘divine givenness’ of holy scripture without taking it to such a literal extent. For him, interpretation is key. One aspect of the article that could be moving away from practical theology towards the critique of tradition is when Turner attempts to explain why clergy members are being bullied. She explains that one theory she studied that suggested bullying may be a ‘corrupted form of sacrifice’ and that those in the church may find it to be ‘cathartic’ when someone who is bullied decides to leave their position. Perhaps, in a possibly unknowing way, they are cleansing themselves of sin by sacrificing a member of their church which may make sense spiritually. The person who was bullied may be seen as a martyr. As a way to rid the church and congregation of their sin. By way how imitating the sacrifice of Christ, the church may be trying to redeem itself. This is a very dark and potentially damaging claim to make seeing as the rest of the article explains how prevalent bullying is and how hurtful these experiences can be for people. This combined with the obvious reluctance of the church in the study to address bullying behaviour in the working environment paints an alarming picture that may shock members of the church and the public and thus be seen as practical theology crossing the line. In a way this is a beneficial aspect of the study as it is about reforming practices to avoid things like bullying, but when it could negatively impact the image of the church it loses sight of what practical theology is trying to do. Turner’s offering of reformed practices here is to re-teach the congregation about sin and how to deal with sin. This seems to be a good suggestion from her practical theology.

Another note from the article that could qualify as theological reflection on the issue came from the experience of a female interviewee that felt her plight from bullying was sexism and not so-called bullying. If a literal interpretation of the bible is taken, women are not allowed to have spiritual authority over men i.e. they should not be ordained members of the clergy so the bullying was a direct result of potential misinterpretation of the bible. Although she saw herself as a sister of Christ, the parish still objectified her because of their theological beliefs that women should not be priests. Even in this context, she must turn to the Lord Himself for strength rather than seeking help from members of the church. Turner does not propose a solution to the situation that made this individual feel that way and there was no final step of formalising revised practice. This could have been as simple as noting that there should be an exploration into the interpretation of that section of biblical script.

Some of the answers given to problems throughout the article seem to be heavily focused on the psychological and sociological responses from individuals. For example, when reflecting on how interviewees felt when they shared their stories, Turner makes an accurate piece of analysis in differentiating between helpful and unhelpful responses of sympathy. She says that if the person who expresses sympathy is not in a position to do anything to change the situation then the sympathy is valued. But, if the person expressing sympathy is in a position to make changes, their voicing is seen as more negative and hollow as they are avoiding causing controversy by not acting. This reflection, while insightful into the experience of the individual, does not explicitly offer up a revised practice. A perhaps more appropriate solution here for the practical theologian could be about ensuring that people elected to positions of power are not afraid to ‘rock the boat’ and therefore would be more willing to act.

Conclusion

The Turner article fits with Swinton and Mowat’s model of practical theology for the most part and is an important study. It does not sit directly within the four-step process but I do not think the methodology was written in order for people to do so. I believe it is an effective piece of practical theology and it would directly make dioceses aware of the potential or existing bullying because, cathartic or not, workplace bullying is something that should be stopped. They should also be conscious of the image of the church that it gives out and how it may impact on those who are potential members of the clergy. However, I do think this article does fail to give strong conclusion regarding offering explicit reformed practices and therefore does not come out as the best piece of practical theology.